On 10/1/19 3:18 PM, Qian Cai wrote: > On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 14:35 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 10/1/19 2:32 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> >> Or suggest how to replace page_owner=on with something else (page_owner=full?) >> and I can change that. But I don't want to implement a variant where we store only >> the freeing stack, though. > > I don't know why you think it is a variant. It sounds to me it is a natural > extension that belongs to page_owner=on that it could always store freeing stack > to help with debugging. Then, it could make implementation easier without all > those different combinations you mentioned in the patch description that could > confuse anyone. > > If someone complains about the overhead introduced to the existing page_owner=on > users, then I think we should have some number to prove that say how much > overhead there by storing freeing stack in page_owner=on, 10%, 50%? I'll wait a few days for these overhead objections and if there are none I will post a version that removes the parameter and stores freeing stack unconditionally.
